But this is California, where nothing reasonable stays reasonable for long.

The price tag for a western span bike path has ballooned to levels that make even cycling advocates wince. The Bay Area Toll Authority's latest estimates are, to put it diplomatically, astronomical. And the engineering challenges are real — Caltrans says hanging a path on one side of the suspension bridge would create an imbalance, meaning you'd need paths on both sides. Double the structure, double the cost, for a single usable lane.

As one Bay Area cyclist put it: "I think it's absurd that we don't have a bike lane across the rest of the Bay Bridge. But the last cost from the Bay Area Toll Authority is absurdly expensive. I can't help but wonder if BATA and Caltrans are resistant to bike infrastructure and if that inflates the cost."

It's a fair question. California agencies have a remarkable talent for making infrastructure projects cost five to ten times what they'd cost literally anywhere else on earth. Is the price tag genuinely reflective of engineering constraints, or is it the bureaucratic equivalent of a contractor's "I don't really want the job" quote?

Another local noted the cascading complexity: Caltrans needs to periodically close vehicle lanes for maintenance, and any path design would have to account for that — adding yet more engineering gymnastics and, naturally, more zeroes to the budget.

Here's where we land: the project should happen eventually. Regional bike connectivity is good policy, and toll-paying cyclists deserve access to the infrastructure their dollars fund. But the path forward (pun intended) requires something Bay Area agencies are allergic to — cost discipline. Before we greenlight billions, we need an honest audit of why California bike infrastructure costs rival small countries' GDP, and whether streamlined designs or competitive bidding could cut the bloat.

Build the path. Just don't let Caltrans charge us for a golden one.